I want to copy here on the GL list a point Nick Kew made on the ER list, in
response to the earlier version of my "considerations X" email that I
mistakenly posted on that list:
>* Choice - the author sees a good reason to use a construct that [the
>guidelines warn]
> against, and that if used well will not present a problem.
(actually his post referred to a different document (EARL) the result of
my posting to the wrong list).
I take Nick's point to be that someone may figure out a way to make
something accessible even though they're violating a checkpoint.
This reminds me of a related point: that following a checkpoint may bring
up some other accessibility problem.
Theoretically, we'll write the checkpoints so that neither of these will
ever happen. But you never know... these are points to keep in mind.
Len
--
Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
Institute on Disabilities/UAP and Dept. of Electrical Engineering at Temple
University
(215) 204-2247 (voice) (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday mailto:kasday@acm.org
Chair, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Group
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/
The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant:
http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/